Importer Tells CIT It Qualifies for 2 Exclusions Under Solar Cells AD/CVD Orders

The Commerce Department improperly found that its off-grid solar charging modules didn't qualify for two exclusions to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells from China, U.S. importer GameChange Solar Corp. argued Oct. 15. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade, GameChange said the agency illegally "disregarded, discounted, and mischaracterized contradictory information on the record including photographs submitted" by the importer (GameChange Solar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00174).

The AD/CVD orders provide for two exclusions to the duties, the first of which covers off-grid solar modules with a glass cover. The exclusion has six criteria, and Commerce found in a scope ruling that GameChange's products failed to satisfy two of them.

The first criteria says the goods must have a "permanently connected wire that terminates in either 8 mm male barrel connector, or a two-port rectangular connector with two pins in square housing of different colors." The second criteria requires the products to be "packaged in individual retail packaging." GameChange argued that Commerce's finding that its products don't meet these criteria was "unsupported by substantial evidence, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law."

The second exclusion GameChange sought to fit its goods under exempted solar cells "permanently integrated into consumer goods with a primary function other than power generation." Commerce said it's not clear that the solar cells in the importer's module are integrated into a consumer good since the "charging module is used to operate the solar modules in the array that produces electricity for consumers." The agency added that even if the module were found to be a consumer good, "its function is not something other than power generation." The module's "only function is power generation," the agency said.

Similarly, the importer said Commerce's decision regarding the consumer goods exclusion was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.

GameChange made an alternative argument during the scope proceeding, claiming its goods should be excluded under (k)(2), meaning its products "differ physically" from the solar cells covered by the scope of the orders. Commerce said the importer "has not argued, or provided any evidence showing," that this is the case.